I was under the impression that life increases in "complexity" (compatible with a rise in entropy) via evolution, which is different to life increasing in terms of "order/symmetry" (incompatible with a rise in entropy).
So I guess the creationists can't make a distinction between order and complexity. (I could be wrong, are there any science guruss out there?)
The second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to inbreeding in the way you expressed, as it is only relevant to energy, not information. DNA is information. The dangers of inbreeding are the result of gene over-expression and mono-genetic disease resistance.
the 2nd law of thermodynamics is essentially written in our DNA, humans like all life on this planet have evolved from other life forms but all life forms are designed to terminate at a certain point. I think this is what DR dumb ass was trying to say. What he didn't take into consideration is reproduction and genetic drift. Nature favors stronger and stronger systems. That is why we must die to allow our offspring to live and spread the genetic code. I would go into detail but ran out of chars
P.S. To get understand here, I don't defend anybody or anything, I just want to get a little bit deeper in what kind of system we talk about. I don't want to get it superficially because I find it's very interesting theme to talk about, once again, I don't put it like who's wrong, but WHAT (not who) is right! (concerning the theme we talk abut). So no need for any "creationist - non-creationist" attitude. We are all humans - with different view of reality we're in. Peace!
3:38 to 4:02 is the part I'd like to comment, and get you opinion of it.
When you say "life on earth" you mean global, right? But when it comes to what kind of life become better and better, then you talk about specifics kind: us! And you putting aside all other forms of life, that don't become better and better. But cause of that is: natural selection. OK, but is natural selection (or evolution) aware that without other forms of life beside the "strongest" (us) life balance...
...become so damaged, that life of all (that include and us) will eventually go weaker, and weaker till the point when the "strongest" will not be able to survive without re-balancing again (mass extinction of us - cause of imbalance). Is that open or closed system? That's 1st.
2nd. example you have with lighter, I'd like to put in our situation (life on earth). So if the Sun is our (Earth) source of life, then the Sun is like biiiig gas supply that over and over load the lighter...
...(Earth) with "gas" (substance - light that is necessary for Earth to "light up" with life). So is that closed, or open system again? - that "relationship with" Sun and Earth, could it be open system?
And for thinking, what prove can you give me to convince me that the whole system - the Universe, is open, not closed system? To specify question, what prove you can support to show me that Universe continuously "fills up" with energy. If it's not, then it's closed system? Right?
@v3ga455: You've posed a very interesting point. I don't know much about science but here's how I see it: Life on Earth itself IS an open system, as our energy comes from the sun, an outside source. Life in the Universe is not an open system, as eventually all of our energy WILL run out, or so our current level of knowledge would say. Who knows, maybe by the time the sun explodes we will have found knowledge that contradicts this. I think you are right. :) Thanks for the thought-provocation.
So when we look it in bigger plan than Cristina show here in vid. we can say that 2nd law of Tdm. can be used to contradict evolution. And it's clear that we can't
separate evolution on Earth with "evolution" of all the Universe. (so far we know) Because when it comes to our "source" of life (Sun) it's obvious that it don't go better and better. And without the Sun we also wouldn't go "better". (If what you said don't become truth - that I doubt).
"Who knows, maybe by the time the sun explodes we will have found knowledge that contradicts this." That's optimistic view! =D BUT, when it comes to "believing thing" I believe that it wouldn't be possible. As Einstein said: "two things are infinitive, the Universe and Human stupidity, but for the fist one I doubt." I can say: "me too!" Problem is, what of so far stupidity we consider as "normal".
I don't know what's funniest, the words "doctoral dissertation" mentioned in the same sentence as Kent Hovind, his gross misunderstanding of both evolution and thermodynamics, or natural law being evoked by a guy who believes in virgin births and resurrected corpses!
I live in Pensacola. You should see Dinosaur Adventure Land. It is the shit. It is like a faith based Chucky Cheese. It's got people riding of pterodactyls and the disciples fighting dragons. Its free also. I go all the time.
I must say the inbreeding thing may be a bit untrue to some extent.
It is with out a doubt a fact that inbreeding causes genetic disorders. However in some cultures where inbreeding occurs in higher than average numbers, you notice a change over time in the general population.
This is pure skepticism however if inbreeding always caused a genetic disorder, (preventing further productive breeding) there should be no changes in the people of that culture. Yet there is.
As an example, I expend more energy (and therefore increase the universes total entropy) by running on a treadmill than I do by writing a poem. (Although writing a good poem is a different matter entirely).
For instance, if we confused ordered information in the form of say, consciousness, with anti-entropic tendency then the absurd conclusion would be that the universe was more aware of itself in the past--and absolutely aware of itself at the time of the big bang. 'order as information' then, does not relate directly to total entropy. rather a loss of entropy only means an ability to do work, not necessarily 'directed work.'
The oversimplification is ok, we have to start somewhere, however mitochondrial dna evidence does point towards a single female ancestor for all humans on earth. But she is much older than the 'eve' of the bible. Also, it might be better to differentiate between 'order' and 'information.' Anti-entropic tendency is the controlled reconfiguration of the suns radiative energy and not genetic trending toward order, but toward reasonably efficient expenditures in context.
Well selection for the most competitive also happens in other replicating systems we do not generally consider "living".
Like viruses, plasmids and transposons. Heck there are single plasmids encoding proteins for 5+ different resistances to antibiotics. The bacteria getting infected with those sure get an edge in certain situations, so the plasmid gets abundant.
I think viruses are "living" regardless of their chemical make up. Anything that is not inanimate and is more than simple chemical or nuclear reaction, is a form of life, even if it is not the same as ours.
Real, you are a theorist! suppose if, instead of viruses, we called them information vectors, then we find a correlate in human reproduction. From the consideration of life as 'that which is capable of satisfying the condition of genetic reproduction' we no longer have to think of hosts as a necessarily different condition than environment in satisfying reproductive needs.
Well I can't stop you from thinking that, but viruses satisfies none of the requirements of having own metabolism, cell membrane and such. They are not placed in any of our kingdoms of life either.
I'd call them molecular parasites, they are nothing more than a string of DNA (or RNA) packed in a protein shell - a giant difference to the most primitive cell.
But you are not the only one with this opinion, virology is part of my education in microbiology, it wouldn't make sense excluding them.
I have to admit that I only pursue biological sciences as a pass-time, and I am hardly qualified beyond a strange obsession with textbooks I read as if they were literature, without the steady inquiry of a scholar in the field. I humbly submit to your insight--I don't want to 'catch a virus' to try and prove you wrong :)
I wonder, if I might ask, is it still the mainline belief that viruses came from DNA or RNA shed by bacteria in lysis or decay after death?
Also, are the remedial elements of misappropriated virus still considered vectors for genetic variation in host species (it seems awkward to me as I don't understand how they could substantially alter the progeny of a multi-cellular host, especially if it is sexually differentiated, in a statistically meaningful way)
I'm not saying that the 'science' you're criticizing isn't idiotic... it is... but your central argument is just... wrong. The second law of thermodynamics isn't a genetics law... Inbreeding doesn't happen bc there isn't new energy going into inbred children... of course there's an energy source going into inbred children... they eat food! The problem is that rare defective genes are more likely to recombine and produce a defective phenotype when you are inbred.
Also, it isn't quite true that evolution says organisms are getting better and stronger. Evolution does say that organisms should be getting better at reproducing given their life circumstances. But evolution can only select upon the available genetic variation, which does not exist to create a *perfect* organism. And there are always trade offs in designing an organism (if you're using energy in one place, you have to sacrifice it in another)
Another problem: The 2nd law of thermodynamics *doesn't* say that people are getting weaker... it says that energy is becoming increasingly more disorganized, which implies that eventually the universe will run out of energy... but this is not on a time scale that is relevant to humans (there's a lot of usable energy in the universe! The sun isn't going to burn out for billions of years!)
I love your channel... and i appreciate you applying science to silly arguments (and it can be done!) but there are some problems in your arguments.
Inbreeding has nothing to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, bc inbred people derive energy from the sun the same way as anyone else. Inbreeding is a genetics problem... it increases the likelihood of harmful recessive genes recombining to produce bad effects.
ce te-as fute futefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefute
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hey little girl, I don't think you are simplifying for anybody but yourself. I'm sorry to say that you are the one to embarass yourself by criticizing the guys way to introduce himself.
Guess you feel insulted by yourself since you are a 2nd grader, am I right? :)
Well why would he introduce himself in a dissertation really? He and his history has nothing to do in a dissertation unless its himself he is writing about.
Ok then I guess i missunderstood you, I tought you were defending Hovind in this case, and looking that ya got 4 thumbs down at this moment I guess im not the only one :)
Read up on what a dissertation is and you will realize that criss aint embarresing herself by criticizing Hovinds way of introducing himself :)
I can agree that its childish but criss at least have a point that this is something that does not belong in a dissertation, I get your point but i do not agree with it fully.
Since November 2006 Hovind has been serving a ten-year prison sentence in the Federal Correctional Institution in Edgefield, S. Carolina, after being convicted of 58 federal counts, including 12 tax offenses, 1 count of obstruct'g fed agents and 45 counts of structuring cash transactions.
In '88 and '91 respectively, Hovind was awarded a master's degree and doctorate in Christian Education through correspondence from the non-accredited Patriot University in Colorado Springs.
Inbreeding isn't a closed system. Remember we all have a common ancestor that reproduced asexually.
Initially, it just copied itself; there was no cross-breeding because there wasn't even sex yet, and nothing to have sex with. Variation came from mutation before it came from recombination.
I've watched like 15 of your videos though and that's the first thing I've disagreed with...
If you look at the fact that even when a new kind of animal is made its the only one or even it several of this new kind happened at once and found each other and mated the population will inbreed.
You're misunderstanding evolution. "When a new kind of animal is made." New animals are not made. One species evolves into many closely related species over long periods of time.
It is impossible for me to have a child with a woman, and that child turn out to be a completely different species. If this happened the theory of evolution would be debunked.
2 million years from now humans may become a different species, or many different species. This will happen in large groups not single births
Every time something breeds it creates new genes, over thousands of generations this change is significant compared to the original. This is evolution. The changes that benefit the species stick around, this is natural selection.
Evolution among viruses is much more rapid. Bacteria very slow because the genetic variation is little in asexual reproduction in this branch of life. It still evolves from adaptations. Like how they become resistant to drugs etc. "Mutations" is vague way of putting it
Bacteria got horizontal gene transfer. They can pick of pieces of DNA from their environment and incorporate them. They can also get genes from other species of bacteria through conjugation from other plasmid infected bacteria. And lastly they can get plasmids themselves, which often encodes proteins giving resistance to different antibiotics.
I wouldn't say bacteria are evolving slowly. With all these mechanisms + they're haploid they far easier get mutations that can't be fixed.
i think that the dudes way of supporting the second law of Thermodynamics is that in a closed system it eventually runs out like in the lighter example you gave ... so instead of a lighter think of a huma, life eventually as you get older you grow weaker until you reach an age and die or shut down ... but this was cleared up when you finished the video and i put another example ect. =D
Is marriage a closed system? It's unnerving to wonder if marriage may be subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Hope not. But it's a pretty good summary of my hesitation in that arena.
I'm not familiar with thermodynamics, but it seems to me that very few things can be considered a "closed" system when there are so many outside systems surrounding everything.
So one marriage is not a "closed" system because of outside effects.
Also it seems to me like thermodynamics would not apply to a relationship between two organisms.
If you look at thermodynamic equations and equations modeling information exchange they are nearly exact, and not without cause--'entropy' is a form of informational degradation. As far as your insight into breeding, you are absolutely correct! I am working on biological modeling and it points to, what for many people seems counter-intuitive. I'll oversimplify it shockingly. "fitness' is adaptive and tends toward specialization. 'unfitness' tends toward death or speciation.
The universe is a closed system. As far as non-theoretical physical objects go, that's about it (unless I can prove that elementary particles are boundries of closed systems--which I never will have the brain to do). Closed systems are used mainly in modeling for the sake of simplicity. And they are often selectively closed, or partially closed. For instance, the earth is effectively a closed system if the information considered outside is an individual graviton
FORGIVE ME FOR MY SLOW BRAIN, oops i had capslock on (and no i'm not going back to retype the whole thing (AND yes i know it took more time to write all this.)) all right enough sillyness, does anyone know what "ZOMGits" means?
@Majenius ZOMGitsCriss means "ZOMG it's Criss". ZOMG is an interjection, derived from the interjection "OMG" which means "Oh my God", "Oh my goodness", or "Oh my gosh". The 'Z' is only for show and does not actually represent a word in the abbreviation. It is pronounced like "Zoe Em Jee".
So basically her name is an interjection, followed by an announcement of her presence and her identity.
Great video but one correction...the sun is a constant but not permanent source of energy. One day we'll have to find another giant glowing orb in the sky!
He writes like the average person who has spent all his life in the church and has had a typical American education. He also is deeply influenced by John Birch-type conspiracy theories.
Why are you wearing an Ankh, Egyptian religious symbol if you are supposed to believe only in evolution? ( not speciation and adaptation) I mean major something from nothing evolution!
Ok if you can prove it, Genesis without a creator I can believe you.
Oh by the way, I am a marine biologist (bet you want to see my certificate now ek?) and a lot of what you said was WAY off, good job you did simplify it lol
- Deductive proof that intelligent agency don't create time. Creating and being intelligent and being conscious, is a process. A process needs time.
Scientific evidence says: Our universe is space-time, meaning time itself had a beginning at big bang. Evidence of genesis without a creator so to speak, while there being no evidence that a creator had to start off the universe. I go where the evidence takes me. Theists don't.
Ever heard of wearing jewelry for the sake of it looking pretty? And the fact that its a historic piece of jewelry as well? And the fact that its not a tool of death she hangs around her neck? :)
@Hypohair There's a story behind the ankh that she's already explained in a previous video, it has something to do with it being a present or something.
Have you actually ever met anyone who wears an ankh for religious reasons? I haven't. There may be some, but I've only seen it used by people today as a fashion accessory.
actually we are in a closed system: the solar system. the sun doesn't have an external source of energy. and we all know that it will blow up sometime.
so our race will improve until that point. if we by then can't leave the solar system, we'll be fucked. :) (if we don't blow ourselfes up before then of course)
so yeah i guess you all know that anyway... well, i see no sense in deleting this so i'll post it anyway. (maybe someone doesn't know and this would help...)
And a permanent marker is? How about a hair PERM? It essentially means you don't expect to have to replace/re-do it all that often or that it is somehow hard to get rid of. It NEVER means something that will be around forever.
The word needs a context, in the context used permanent is pretty good. It is not the best choice of ENGLISH word though...
Not sure if you noticed, English is not her first language.
@ zippy i know her first language is not english but thanks for the response my english is not so very wel either(i'm dutch) so i missunderstanded, thanks for clearing it up to my :-)
Well, anyone who've studied biology knows that generally, a species evolves into something new in a few million years. So, technically speaking, from the supposed lifetime of the human race (that is, supposing we're not wiped out by our own greed and such) the sun is a permanent source of energy. It will be there, not decreasing in power, for another 4 billion years, and hopefully by then, the post-human race will have found a new place to live, with a new sun :)
LMFAO, now Patriot is trying to make it seem as though that was merely a draft, LOLWUT?
Even if it was a draft, why would he ever have 'Hello, my name is....' you never announce an academic paper!
Also, Patriot is hoping that people are ignorant regarding Kent's work for them. You see, the dissertation is dated May 25th, 1991. Well, Hovind has a video called 'Answering the Skeptics' where he shows a picture of his "Ph.D." Guess what, the date is like June 13th, 1991. They are LIARS!
HailUnc33, how is the earth in a 'state of decline?'
The earth is a planet orbiting a star, and it is true that the star in question ( the sun ) is going to literally destroy earth when it is in its final stages of nuclear fusion. However, how is that fact relevant to the earth's current state, or its status yesterday, or even future status, tomorrow?
@rwbayes: I know it sounds odd but in my case wishing a believer a merry Christmas does not require me to have a belief in the "reason for the season". I enjoy the Christmas season for many reasons. Its just that I don't have a god belief. Simply because I do not have this belief doesn't mean that I can't wish my friends that are believers a merry Christmas. I'm not sure that I've explained myself adequately but I can understand why you would find this scenario amusing.
= I could do without the periodical smiting since I could eventually be the target.=
I would probably be high on the list myself, however, any actual GOD that was as obsessed as this one is reportedly that everyone should believe in his power and all that would leave no doubt and make an appearance himself rather than leaving it up to these narrow minded nit-wits to speak on his behalf.
I give my 7th grade student's F's if they start their paper with "Hi, my name is __________________ and I'm going to tell you about ______________." I make them rewrite it. It's crazy even an unaccredited university would accept that from a PhD candidate.
As humans we strive for knowledge and mastery over the universe. We have gained knowledge to the point we can manipulate the very building blocks of matter. We are also well on our way to building a race of mechanical beings below us, that we believe will rival our own in intellect and physical ability(robotics). Why is it hard to believe that this thing has been done before?
We are not machines. And I find it very difficult to believe that an invisible tyrant in the sky that we've never seen before creates everything who supposedly was talked to and seen many years ago by primitives and showed them supposed miracles. Yet he seems to be lacking his appearances in today's world. Funny that.
Yes, we are biological machines. A biologist will confirm that. Each cell is a system that is made up of many subsystems and those subsystems are dependant upon information stored in the dna.
We are not the first advanced civilization that has lived on the earth. The evidence is the mechanical ability to move 80 ton stones into pyramids that fit so a paper cannot be inserted between the joints.
If the earth had a nuclear war, In 2000 years our ancestors would be standing around looking at what was left, asking themselves who were those people who built that.
The pyramids are not evidence that we were not the first civilization on the planet. How were the pyramids built with slave labour of course. How quickly people forget how many slaves they had doing there work. You have enough slaves and even a primitive civilization can things built. And assuming it was used with sort of advanced technology from some other civilization then were is this technology now? And how did the Egyptians get it? You are talking now about conspiracy theories.
There are pyramids throughout the earth. But I was referencing the pyramids in South America. Technology can easily be lost. This is evidenced by the current peoples who live in Egypt who in no way could build a pyramid no matter how many slaves they had.
Only now are we finding antigravity and how to harness it.
=Only now are we finding antigravity and how to harness it.=
What are you on exactly?
People have moved large blocks over large distances using simple technology that would have been around at the time and not even using that many 'slaves'.
It is also generally believed that most of these slaves were slaves to the Pharos in much the same way religious nuts today are slaves to Jesus and more often than not the preachers.
We found Antigravity, and how to harness it? You just lost all credibility. The only thing we just found is anti-matter, which has the same gravitational properties as regular matter.
This is a technology closely held by the department of defense. The government has been experimenting with these technologies for 80 years. The science on many technologies has been withheld for years. This is something they do not teach in normal college physics courses.
There isn't even a vaguely plausible theory out there about how anti-gravity would work. The only thing you see is people, from time to time, speculating that it was discovered years ago and is being kept a secret.
Normally new technologies result from things that have been known for ages but were too difficult to do until someone figures out how to make it work. There isn't even the wildest hypothesis about how GRAVITY actually works (it is well understood except for HOW) forget anti-gravity.
Also, the embalming process used by the Egyptians preserves cells suitable for cloning.
Think about this, A large stone structure, in the middle of a geologically stable area of earth, with your viable dna hidden inside until the technology is rediscovered. Farfetched!
Well the mummy dna is viable. We don't have that technology. But we will.
If they were such an advanced Civilization who wanted to preserve bodies for cloning, they would understand that it wouldn't accomplish anything.
You would have a genetic copy of a pharaoh, sure. But without the memories and experiences of the original one, this is just going to be a normal child with a certain set of Genes.
It's not like twins have identical personalities.
Again. You are going by speculation. "What if this, what if THAT?" It is extremely easy to speculate on these issues, but hard to find the truth. This is where religion fails. This is where you fail. You state ridiculous statements, and back them up with nothing? Anti-Gravity? Are you shitting me?
Because the idea of god is that there is nothing before him, and he is eternal. Even though that completely nullifies the argument of (Everything can't come from nothing.)
The Bible also describes the earth as very young. The bible suggests a lot of things, which are sheer speculation. This is a different age, where speculation is tested before it is decided as fact. The bible fails on many levels of this.
Ok, The governing laws change with the progression of dimensions.
I believe the bible describes an old earth. The universe is at least 14b years old and probably older. It is not the bible that fails it is some people who interpret it.
Sir, you are so beyond your level of knowledge you have no idea. Governing laws change with the progression of dimensions? No they do not. Laws apply for every dimension in said universe, it is the "geometry" of this dimensions that decides how the law affects it. Scientists do not say there may be up to 26 dimensions. We so far have enough IMAGINATION to work with 11. After 11 dimensions, you run out of branches, as the 11th dimension is the line from one infinity to another.
Half the crap you saw sounds exactly what this church that I visited said as a defense against non believers.
You honestly have no grasp of the things you claim to understand. You have no scientific background, you just sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist on the level of the "9/11 was an inside job" people.
=I believe the bible describes an old earth. The universe is at least 14b years old and probably older. It is not the bible that fails it is some people who interpret it.=
Why is it so difficult for you to just accept the possibility that the book, however important to human history, was probably written by men who had no more direct connections to GOD than Rush Limbaugh does in our time.
It is, was and continues to be the WORD OF GOD simply because the people that wrote it said it was.
@BloodyRussian You treat the Bible as if it were written merely by men. But what if it were a message from God Himself, not only telling us about Himself, but giving us some insight into His creation?
The Bible described the hydrological cycle long before 'science' verified it. The Bible describes currents in the oceans before they were catalogued by US Navy in the 1800's, The Bible described constellations that have gravitation bonds, which were only discovered recently. Just to name a few.
@BloodyRussian What's up with that? First, the Bible wasn't written in Latin. And if God did write it, wouldn't He put it in a language(s) that humans might understand? I was just pointing out that you were passing judgement on the Bible based upon a presupposition. And I just asked what if that presupposition were something different? And I pointed out some facts that tend to demonstrate that there is more there than your superficial comment would lead us to believe.
Exactly. I am passing a judgment on the Bible. A much more rational judgment. There is a MUCH higher chance that it was written by human beings, instead of something almighty.
The problem with believers is that they always tell atheists that they don't have proof that their Gods DON'T exist, yet the fail to remember that when you accuse something of being real the burden of proof is ON YOU, not the rest of the world.
@Bloodd - U say U want proof. Yet when proof is given, U deny, or won't accept it. The point is not that I can't prove God exists, but I can't prove to YOU God exists. For the record, there is NO Chance that the Bible was authored by Humans. It was penned by humans, yes, but its source remains divine. The trade mark of God is being able to explain the future with 100% accuracy. It is undeniable & irreproducable. The prophecies in the Book of Daniel were in black & White 300 years b4 Christ.
@rwbayes: Regarding the bible; Doesn't it sound like a half-assed attempt (for an all-knowing, all-seeing being) at getting his message across to his creations (us)? The stories are so convoluted, the bible can only be the creation of man. A book written, as someone already said, for goat-herders.
This question has been asked of me many times. The bible as a whole is a collection of convoluted stories in my opinion. In its day I could see how this writing style would be effective. The idea that a god would resort to passing on his message to his creation via a middleman seems an odd means for such an entity. It would be easier, more efficient and 100% foolproof if said god created us with this knowledge being inherent.
@rwbayes (continued): With an inherent knowledge of a creator all chance of error is removed. Look at how many versions of gods and deities and religious texts we have today! If there is a one true god look at the conflict and confusion created by not making this knowledge inherent. People killing people because they don't believe in the same god or for not having a belief in any god.
=It would be easier, more efficient and 100% foolproof if said god created us with this knowledge being inherent.=
Never mind that it would be pretty obvious if he turned up every 50 years or so and smited something so that people could witness it. I suppose he could do something nice and miraculous but that seems wildly out of character for the GOD of the Old Testament anyways.
@BloodyRussian You (Naturalists in General) have made the only way to define life and our existence to be without God. ANY assertion to explain and describe evidence of God is categorically disclaimed, disregarded, and disqualified.You Automatically deny God, by definition. Which means you have nullified any possibility to prove He exists. You can't demand we prove God and then say "O no, that breaks the rules" when we do make the argument. That, BTW, is a perversion of scientific inquiry.
No. The only reason we disregard your proof is that it usually comes in the form of something ridiculous, such as "WELL LOOK AT EVERYTHING, THERE IS NO WAY IT HAPPENED BY CHANCE". The reason Scientific Inquiry is "Perverted" is because we want to see something TESTED before it is written down anyway.
Science doesn't disclaim anything. Science always has unanswered questions, even about proven theories, so don't try to victimize yourself.
= But what if it were a message from God Himself, not only telling us about Himself, but giving us some insight into His creation? =
Then he shouldn't have written something that sounds so ridiculous by modern standards. It is far more likely that it was written by Goat Herders with high IQs and an understanding that what their unruly civilization needed was, well, some RULES.
Since nobody was going to take their word for it they made up a scary magical creator that punishes anti social acts.
At best it was written for goat herders to understand. That would suggest that a great deal if it is irrelevant today. I would tend to argue almost all of it is irrelevant.
It is far more likely that the reason this really old book talks about GOD turning up and taking direct action THEN but doesn't in todays 'everyone has a camera' world is that GOD never took direct action then either...
Its a book...written by the smartest of the goat herders.
Faithfulness, self-sacrifice, Love, loyalty, integrity, perseverance, honesty, These are irrelevant for today?
Even in the earliest chapters were farmers, shepherds, artisans, musicians, metal workers, star gazers, architects, ship builders and such. Sounds not too different to me.
God's not taking action today? What kind of actions do you expect Him to make? What kind would say - "I'm God"? Wouldn't you think it would have to be something other than naturalistic?
Those are great things...but a great deal of the Old Testament deals with genocide and vengence. I did say mostly irrelevant. I wouldn't off hand want to place a percentage on that I just know that most of the passages of the OT that I have read scare me, and not for the reasons you might think.
since we are dealing with a bunch of stupid idiods that tend to distorte any real data. so since we have the advantage and the facts, I think it is important to keep it sceincetific and not resort to wrong analogies. If we are talking analogies, the stupid idiots can also make a case
sorry to rate and watch so late.love your vids, criss!hope you are also warm and well, and best to you, your hubby, your cat!been thinking of your job search also..hope it goes well.peace!
The only thing I will nick-pick about is the idea that the sun is a "permanent" source of energy. Eventually the sun will die and we will be completely screwed - but sometime before that happens our orbit will degrade enough that the earth will no longer be in the zone of habitability and we will be most likely screwed (depending on our level of technology I suppose).
That will likely be a slow process. The Earth's orbit won't degrade (at least not that anyone can determine) but if conditions change and we are no longer in the habitable zone, then we will evolve and the new zone will be the only habitable zone. At least until the sun starts it's nova process. You're right, the sun will eventually burn out. Chances are really good that humans will be long extinct by then, though. No worries.
"The Earth's orbit won't degrade (at least not that anyone can determine)"
Not true - we can calculate it. Since the sun is constantly losing mass, the earth's orbit (and all other orbits) are constantly also losing potential energy (not to mention tiny bits of friction).
I have my bets on climate change (natural and artificial) + pandemic myself. LIFE will probably persist, but I'm not sure we have a chance of continuing indefinitely.
I haven't heard this. Interesting. Can you cite a source, by chance? You're probably right, but I'm curious how fast we are moving away from the sun.
I have my bets on a stray comet. However, I believe if it doesn't happen in the next 50 years, something else will get us (technology will help prevent anything smaller than a dwarf planet from hitting us). Second place goes to a pandemic airborne virus. I can see climate change.
I don't get some people assume that evolution is a strive towards perfection.
There is no 'perfect' or 'ultimate' form for a creature, they are just constant adaptations to changing environments. There isn't an environment or that will always stay constant which means there is no way for a creature to achieve 'perfection.'
=There is no 'perfect' or 'ultimate' form for a creature=
It is always with respect to an environment, and it seems that if an environment becomes stable so does a creature at some kind of optimum but 'perfection' where evolution is concerned is a state in which no change in the creature (within the limits of what evolution can do) seems to give the new version of the creature any notable advantage over its contemporaries.
But yes a quest for THE perfect animal is not what evolution is at all.
Thermodynamics don't really apply to the quality of an organisms genes. the usefulness of the genes is defigned by the enviroment the organism is in, not how much energy it has.
a flea upon a flea upon a flea. infinity. cosmic energy. nothing can begat nothing. it is our struggle to seperate politics from faith and all become one. thats my version of 'evolution'.
The Sun is a permanent source of energy? There r 2 things that don't exist in our universe, they r only theoretical concepts. 1-is Randomness. 2-is infinity. Within the space/time/matter continuum infinity does not exist. Therefore there is no infinite source of energy. The universe as a whole is a closed system - that what the 1st law says.Within that system can be open and closed systems, but the overall result will still progress towards entropy.
Not sure about randomness. At the quantum level, randomness may very well exist, eg. Heisenberg uncertainty, quantum fluctuations, etc. It is speculated that quantum fluctuations during the earliest phases of the expansion of the universe were responsible for the distribution of matter throughout it, making the overall structure of the cosmos random as well.
@XGralgrathor Well put. However, one of the things that a computer scientist will attest to is that there is no such thing as a random number. We can generate pseudo-random numbers - but true randomness doesn't exist. The closest possible example of something that appears random is the decimal places of Pi and E. Even at that, it's the same number every time. And entropy is defined as something that moves to total randomness - there is no order. Ref Chaos theory.
« And entropy is defined as something that moves to total randomness »
Actually, it isn't. Entropy is defined as the availability of usable energy in a system, in other words, it is the measure of dissipation of energy throughout a closed system. This does not necessarily equate to having more or less order.
@XGralgrathor Actually I think it does "entropy is defined as a thermodynamic property which serves as a measure of how close a system is to equilibrium; as well as a measure of the disorder in the system." -Encarta
« as well as a measure of the disorder in the system »
Interesting, but consider ice, or ice II, III or IV. Each of these forms of ice are more ordered than the preceding form, and yet each comes to exist as more energy is leached from the system. Total equilibrium (max. entropy) may also equal total order, whereas a disequilibrium (min. entropy) may equal total chaos. So I don't think that 'measure of disorder' is a particularly apt description of entropy.
@XGralgrathor Hm gotta think about that one. But you've also used as an illustration the one substance that produces unique properties at various temps/pressure/states than any other substance. Which may speak to this marvelous exception that makes life possible, and not necessarily to a standard description of entropy.
I was under the impression that life increases in "complexity" (compatible with a rise in entropy) via evolution, which is different to life increasing in terms of "order/symmetry" (incompatible with a rise in entropy).
So I guess the creationists can't make a distinction between order and complexity. (I could be wrong, are there any science guruss out there?)
victorbarovsky 2 years ago
The second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to inbreeding in the way you expressed, as it is only relevant to energy, not information. DNA is information. The dangers of inbreeding are the result of gene over-expression and mono-genetic disease resistance.
Aerosteon 2 years ago
the 2nd law of thermodynamics is essentially written in our DNA, humans like all life on this planet have evolved from other life forms but all life forms are designed to terminate at a certain point. I think this is what DR dumb ass was trying to say. What he didn't take into consideration is reproduction and genetic drift. Nature favors stronger and stronger systems. That is why we must die to allow our offspring to live and spread the genetic code. I would go into detail but ran out of chars
larsonb33 2 years ago
I love your accent!
xboxguy516 2 years ago
P.S. To get understand here, I don't defend anybody or anything, I just want to get a little bit deeper in what kind of system we talk about. I don't want to get it superficially because I find it's very interesting theme to talk about, once again, I don't put it like who's wrong, but WHAT (not who) is right! (concerning the theme we talk abut). So no need for any "creationist - non-creationist" attitude. We are all humans - with different view of reality we're in. Peace!
v3ga455 2 years ago
3:38 to 4:02 is the part I'd like to comment, and get you opinion of it.
When you say "life on earth" you mean global, right? But when it comes to what kind of life become better and better, then you talk about specifics kind: us! And you putting aside all other forms of life, that don't become better and better. But cause of that is: natural selection. OK, but is natural selection (or evolution) aware that without other forms of life beside the "strongest" (us) life balance...
v3ga455 2 years ago
...become so damaged, that life of all (that include and us) will eventually go weaker, and weaker till the point when the "strongest" will not be able to survive without re-balancing again (mass extinction of us - cause of imbalance). Is that open or closed system? That's 1st.
2nd. example you have with lighter, I'd like to put in our situation (life on earth). So if the Sun is our (Earth) source of life, then the Sun is like biiiig gas supply that over and over load the lighter...
v3ga455 2 years ago
...(Earth) with "gas" (substance - light that is necessary for Earth to "light up" with life). So is that closed, or open system again? - that "relationship with" Sun and Earth, could it be open system?
And for thinking, what prove can you give me to convince me that the whole system - the Universe, is open, not closed system? To specify question, what prove you can support to show me that Universe continuously "fills up" with energy. If it's not, then it's closed system? Right?
Peace!
v3ga455 2 years ago
Comment removed
Yuri92001 2 years ago
1. Open
2. Closed.
occhamsrazor 2 years ago
@v3ga455: You've posed a very interesting point. I don't know much about science but here's how I see it: Life on Earth itself IS an open system, as our energy comes from the sun, an outside source. Life in the Universe is not an open system, as eventually all of our energy WILL run out, or so our current level of knowledge would say. Who knows, maybe by the time the sun explodes we will have found knowledge that contradicts this. I think you are right. :) Thanks for the thought-provocation.
akitylasaraleen123 2 years ago
Thank you! =D
So when we look it in bigger plan than Cristina show here in vid. we can say that 2nd law of Tdm. can be used to contradict evolution. And it's clear that we can't
separate evolution on Earth with "evolution" of all the Universe. (so far we know) Because when it comes to our "source" of life (Sun) it's obvious that it don't go better and better. And without the Sun we also wouldn't go "better". (If what you said don't become truth - that I doubt).
v3ga455 2 years ago
« say that 2nd law of Tdm. can be used to contradict evolution »
You can say that, but it would be a falsehood.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Who knows, maybe by the time the sun explodes we will have found knowledge that contradicts this." That's optimistic view! =D BUT, when it comes to "believing thing" I believe that it wouldn't be possible. As Einstein said: "two things are infinitive, the Universe and Human stupidity, but for the fist one I doubt." I can say: "me too!" Problem is, what of so far stupidity we consider as "normal".
Peace!
v3ga455 2 years ago
I don't know what's funniest, the words "doctoral dissertation" mentioned in the same sentence as Kent Hovind, his gross misunderstanding of both evolution and thermodynamics, or natural law being evoked by a guy who believes in virgin births and resurrected corpses!
SuperImready 2 years ago
Romania, your accent sounds like Kentucky.
appledroplarry 2 years ago
I live in Pensacola. You should see Dinosaur Adventure Land. It is the shit. It is like a faith based Chucky Cheese. It's got people riding of pterodactyls and the disciples fighting dragons. Its free also. I go all the time.
appledroplarry 2 years ago
It is not nice to make fun of people with mental retardation.
The universe is expanding and I hate it.
appledroplarry 2 years ago
I must say the inbreeding thing may be a bit untrue to some extent.
It is with out a doubt a fact that inbreeding causes genetic disorders. However in some cultures where inbreeding occurs in higher than average numbers, you notice a change over time in the general population.
This is pure skepticism however if inbreeding always caused a genetic disorder, (preventing further productive breeding) there should be no changes in the people of that culture. Yet there is.
RealistAtheist 2 years ago
As an example, I expend more energy (and therefore increase the universes total entropy) by running on a treadmill than I do by writing a poem. (Although writing a good poem is a different matter entirely).
ElderOfTzion 2 years ago
For instance, if we confused ordered information in the form of say, consciousness, with anti-entropic tendency then the absurd conclusion would be that the universe was more aware of itself in the past--and absolutely aware of itself at the time of the big bang. 'order as information' then, does not relate directly to total entropy. rather a loss of entropy only means an ability to do work, not necessarily 'directed work.'
ElderOfTzion 2 years ago
The oversimplification is ok, we have to start somewhere, however mitochondrial dna evidence does point towards a single female ancestor for all humans on earth. But she is much older than the 'eve' of the bible. Also, it might be better to differentiate between 'order' and 'information.' Anti-entropic tendency is the controlled reconfiguration of the suns radiative energy and not genetic trending toward order, but toward reasonably efficient expenditures in context.
ElderOfTzion 2 years ago
Well selection for the most competitive also happens in other replicating systems we do not generally consider "living".
Like viruses, plasmids and transposons. Heck there are single plasmids encoding proteins for 5+ different resistances to antibiotics. The bacteria getting infected with those sure get an edge in certain situations, so the plasmid gets abundant.
xxDickBonesxx 2 years ago
I think viruses are "living" regardless of their chemical make up. Anything that is not inanimate and is more than simple chemical or nuclear reaction, is a form of life, even if it is not the same as ours.
RealistAtheist 2 years ago
Real, you are a theorist! suppose if, instead of viruses, we called them information vectors, then we find a correlate in human reproduction. From the consideration of life as 'that which is capable of satisfying the condition of genetic reproduction' we no longer have to think of hosts as a necessarily different condition than environment in satisfying reproductive needs.
ElderOfTzion 2 years ago
Well I can't stop you from thinking that, but viruses satisfies none of the requirements of having own metabolism, cell membrane and such. They are not placed in any of our kingdoms of life either.
I'd call them molecular parasites, they are nothing more than a string of DNA (or RNA) packed in a protein shell - a giant difference to the most primitive cell.
But you are not the only one with this opinion, virology is part of my education in microbiology, it wouldn't make sense excluding them.
xxDickBonesxx 2 years ago
I have to admit that I only pursue biological sciences as a pass-time, and I am hardly qualified beyond a strange obsession with textbooks I read as if they were literature, without the steady inquiry of a scholar in the field. I humbly submit to your insight--I don't want to 'catch a virus' to try and prove you wrong :)
I wonder, if I might ask, is it still the mainline belief that viruses came from DNA or RNA shed by bacteria in lysis or decay after death?
ElderOfTzion 2 years ago
Also, are the remedial elements of misappropriated virus still considered vectors for genetic variation in host species (it seems awkward to me as I don't understand how they could substantially alter the progeny of a multi-cellular host, especially if it is sexually differentiated, in a statistically meaningful way)
ElderOfTzion 2 years ago
I'm not saying that the 'science' you're criticizing isn't idiotic... it is... but your central argument is just... wrong. The second law of thermodynamics isn't a genetics law... Inbreeding doesn't happen bc there isn't new energy going into inbred children... of course there's an energy source going into inbred children... they eat food! The problem is that rare defective genes are more likely to recombine and produce a defective phenotype when you are inbred.
kwijiborjt 2 years ago
Also, it isn't quite true that evolution says organisms are getting better and stronger. Evolution does say that organisms should be getting better at reproducing given their life circumstances. But evolution can only select upon the available genetic variation, which does not exist to create a *perfect* organism. And there are always trade offs in designing an organism (if you're using energy in one place, you have to sacrifice it in another)
kwijiborjt 2 years ago
Another problem: The 2nd law of thermodynamics *doesn't* say that people are getting weaker... it says that energy is becoming increasingly more disorganized, which implies that eventually the universe will run out of energy... but this is not on a time scale that is relevant to humans (there's a lot of usable energy in the universe! The sun isn't going to burn out for billions of years!)
kwijiborjt 2 years ago
@kwijiborjt: (but you explained this... i don't mean to say that you were wrong on this count)
kwijiborjt 2 years ago
I love your channel... and i appreciate you applying science to silly arguments (and it can be done!) but there are some problems in your arguments.
Inbreeding has nothing to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, bc inbred people derive energy from the sun the same way as anyone else. Inbreeding is a genetics problem... it increases the likelihood of harmful recessive genes recombining to produce bad effects.
kwijiborjt 2 years ago
Excellent explanation for this argument.
drnekodr 2 years ago
ce te-as fute futefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefutefute
bombonel1000 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hey little girl, I don't think you are simplifying for anybody but yourself. I'm sorry to say that you are the one to embarass yourself by criticizing the guys way to introduce himself.
Guess you feel insulted by yourself since you are a 2nd grader, am I right? :)
MERisenForce 2 years ago
Well why would he introduce himself in a dissertation really? He and his history has nothing to do in a dissertation unless its himself he is writing about.
Sprattelkungen 2 years ago
@Sprattelkungen
I don't know, I don't actually care. As far as I'm concerned Kent Hovind is a fundamentalist looney and I won't defend him. =)
MERisenForce 2 years ago
@MERisenForce
Ok then I guess i missunderstood you, I tought you were defending Hovind in this case, and looking that ya got 4 thumbs down at this moment I guess im not the only one :)
Read up on what a dissertation is and you will realize that criss aint embarresing herself by criticizing Hovinds way of introducing himself :)
Sprattelkungen 2 years ago
No prob. =)
I wasn't defending him, since he's at least as wrong as she is. At this point I criticized her because she was as childish as he's.
I still find them both morons - he's the bigger moron, but also a little more interesting/funny to listen to. ^_^
Peace!
MERisenForce 2 years ago
I can agree that its childish but criss at least have a point that this is something that does not belong in a dissertation, I get your point but i do not agree with it fully.
peace to you 2 dude! :)
Sprattelkungen 2 years ago
Since November 2006 Hovind has been serving a ten-year prison sentence in the Federal Correctional Institution in Edgefield, S. Carolina, after being convicted of 58 federal counts, including 12 tax offenses, 1 count of obstruct'g fed agents and 45 counts of structuring cash transactions.
In '88 and '91 respectively, Hovind was awarded a master's degree and doctorate in Christian Education through correspondence from the non-accredited Patriot University in Colorado Springs.
Source: Wikipedia
beanb4 2 years ago 2
Good ! I truly hope he's being compromised in prison by some big black guy , screaming Jesus can have a totally new meaning .
I doubt it ,he's a predator .but it was just a thought .
I commend the legal system but I'm left with the impression Hovind somehow felt immune ,untouchable , but then something changed .
Radicalindifference 2 years ago
Inbreeding isn't a closed system. Remember we all have a common ancestor that reproduced asexually.
Initially, it just copied itself; there was no cross-breeding because there wasn't even sex yet, and nothing to have sex with. Variation came from mutation before it came from recombination.
I've watched like 15 of your videos though and that's the first thing I've disagreed with...
hymnofashes 2 years ago
If you look at the fact that even when a new kind of animal is made its the only one or even it several of this new kind happened at once and found each other and mated the population will inbreed.
demongrunt7 2 years ago
You're misunderstanding evolution. "When a new kind of animal is made." New animals are not made. One species evolves into many closely related species over long periods of time.
It is impossible for me to have a child with a woman, and that child turn out to be a completely different species. If this happened the theory of evolution would be debunked.
2 million years from now humans may become a different species, or many different species. This will happen in large groups not single births
RealistAtheist 2 years ago
Every time something breeds it creates new genes, over thousands of generations this change is significant compared to the original. This is evolution. The changes that benefit the species stick around, this is natural selection.
Evolution among viruses is much more rapid. Bacteria very slow because the genetic variation is little in asexual reproduction in this branch of life. It still evolves from adaptations. Like how they become resistant to drugs etc. "Mutations" is vague way of putting it
RealistAtheist 2 years ago
Bacteria got horizontal gene transfer. They can pick of pieces of DNA from their environment and incorporate them. They can also get genes from other species of bacteria through conjugation from other plasmid infected bacteria. And lastly they can get plasmids themselves, which often encodes proteins giving resistance to different antibiotics.
I wouldn't say bacteria are evolving slowly. With all these mechanisms + they're haploid they far easier get mutations that can't be fixed.
xxDickBonesxx 2 years ago
Always nice to know, never heard of this before.
RealistAtheist 2 years ago
Free Kent Hovind!
DickGhostmoon 2 years ago
i think that the dudes way of supporting the second law of Thermodynamics is that in a closed system it eventually runs out like in the lighter example you gave ... so instead of a lighter think of a huma, life eventually as you get older you grow weaker until you reach an age and die or shut down ... but this was cleared up when you finished the video and i put another example ect. =D
zoeviz000 2 years ago
Is marriage a closed system? It's unnerving to wonder if marriage may be subject to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Hope not. But it's a pretty good summary of my hesitation in that arena.
forestskog 2 years ago
I'm not familiar with thermodynamics, but it seems to me that very few things can be considered a "closed" system when there are so many outside systems surrounding everything.
So one marriage is not a "closed" system because of outside effects.
Also it seems to me like thermodynamics would not apply to a relationship between two organisms.
RealistAtheist 2 years ago
If you look at thermodynamic equations and equations modeling information exchange they are nearly exact, and not without cause--'entropy' is a form of informational degradation. As far as your insight into breeding, you are absolutely correct! I am working on biological modeling and it points to, what for many people seems counter-intuitive. I'll oversimplify it shockingly. "fitness' is adaptive and tends toward specialization. 'unfitness' tends toward death or speciation.
ElderOfTzion 2 years ago
The universe is a closed system. As far as non-theoretical physical objects go, that's about it (unless I can prove that elementary particles are boundries of closed systems--which I never will have the brain to do). Closed systems are used mainly in modeling for the sake of simplicity. And they are often selectively closed, or partially closed. For instance, the earth is effectively a closed system if the information considered outside is an individual graviton
ElderOfTzion 2 years ago
FORGIVE ME FOR MY SLOW BRAIN, oops i had capslock on (and no i'm not going back to retype the whole thing (AND yes i know it took more time to write all this.)) all right enough sillyness, does anyone know what "ZOMGits" means?
Majenius 2 years ago
@Majenius ZOMGitsCriss means "ZOMG it's Criss". ZOMG is an interjection, derived from the interjection "OMG" which means "Oh my God", "Oh my goodness", or "Oh my gosh". The 'Z' is only for show and does not actually represent a word in the abbreviation. It is pronounced like "Zoe Em Jee".
So basically her name is an interjection, followed by an announcement of her presence and her identity.
I hope that clears things up for you. :)
PillsC2E 2 years ago 3
Excelent explanation THX
Majenius 2 years ago
Feh. I reject your reality and substitute my own.
ZOM is Criss's husband. You know, ZOM Gits Criss.
And I don't, which makes me sad.
JCCyC 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow! A dumb blond bimbo posts the dumbest video on youtube! Congratulations!
P.S. How much for a blow-job?
BloodOfRayne 2 years ago
Wow! A dumb Brit with absolutely nothing to say says absolutely nothing! Congratulations!
P.S. Your poetry sucks.
infideluxe 2 years ago
Brit ? whos the DUMB fuck noweeeeeeeeeee lol
bisley66 2 years ago
tArd
bisley66 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
retarded blond learn some science
tonymers 2 years ago
Great video but one correction...the sun is a constant but not permanent source of energy. One day we'll have to find another giant glowing orb in the sky!
rjurban101 2 years ago
So...you are smart, incredibly hot...I'm moving to Romania...which town did you say you're from? Hope my wife will understand.
rjurban101 2 years ago
I've read parts of it.
He doesn't write like a 2nd grader.
He writes like the average person who has spent all his life in the church and has had a typical American education. He also is deeply influenced by John Birch-type conspiracy theories.
Retrieverman1 2 years ago 2
@Retrieverman1 ... Yeah, isnt't that what 2nd grade is? :P
No offense... but he really could have started with something more intresting.
olleboll93 2 years ago
I didn't get what she said because I was too busy thinking how sweet she looks. I know, I'm a shallow bastard...
qdaboo2 2 years ago 3
I want to go to dinner with your accent, you can come to.
UncomfortableSilence 2 years ago
Interesting.... interesting...
joshcena33 2 years ago
Why are you wearing an Ankh, Egyptian religious symbol if you are supposed to believe only in evolution? ( not speciation and adaptation) I mean major something from nothing evolution!
Ok if you can prove it, Genesis without a creator I can believe you.
Oh by the way, I am a marine biologist (bet you want to see my certificate now ek?) and a lot of what you said was WAY off, good job you did simplify it lol
Hypohair 2 years ago
@Hypohair
- Deductive proof that intelligent agency don't create time. Creating and being intelligent and being conscious, is a process. A process needs time.
Scientific evidence says: Our universe is space-time, meaning time itself had a beginning at big bang. Evidence of genesis without a creator so to speak, while there being no evidence that a creator had to start off the universe. I go where the evidence takes me. Theists don't.
Censeo 2 years ago
Ever heard of wearing jewelry for the sake of it looking pretty? And the fact that its a historic piece of jewelry as well? And the fact that its not a tool of death she hangs around her neck? :)
xxhellspawnedxx 2 years ago
@Hypohair There's a story behind the ankh that she's already explained in a previous video, it has something to do with it being a present or something.
Ryvensan 2 years ago
Have you actually ever met anyone who wears an ankh for religious reasons? I haven't. There may be some, but I've only seen it used by people today as a fashion accessory.
jodnl 2 years ago
actually we are in a closed system: the solar system. the sun doesn't have an external source of energy. and we all know that it will blow up sometime.
so our race will improve until that point. if we by then can't leave the solar system, we'll be fucked. :) (if we don't blow ourselfes up before then of course)
so yeah i guess you all know that anyway... well, i see no sense in deleting this so i'll post it anyway. (maybe someone doesn't know and this would help...)
stoikr 2 years ago
sorry to say this but the sun is not permanent (altouh i'm pretty sure it wil last longer than alkaline battery's XD)
CArebox3000 2 years ago
=sorry to say this but the sun is not permanent =
And a permanent marker is? How about a hair PERM? It essentially means you don't expect to have to replace/re-do it all that often or that it is somehow hard to get rid of. It NEVER means something that will be around forever.
The word needs a context, in the context used permanent is pretty good. It is not the best choice of ENGLISH word though...
Not sure if you noticed, English is not her first language.
zippydebrain 2 years ago
@ zippy i know her first language is not english but thanks for the response my english is not so very wel either(i'm dutch) so i missunderstanded, thanks for clearing it up to my :-)
CArebox3000 2 years ago
Well, anyone who've studied biology knows that generally, a species evolves into something new in a few million years. So, technically speaking, from the supposed lifetime of the human race (that is, supposing we're not wiped out by our own greed and such) the sun is a permanent source of energy. It will be there, not decreasing in power, for another 4 billion years, and hopefully by then, the post-human race will have found a new place to live, with a new sun :)
xxhellspawnedxx 2 years ago
=hopefully by then, the post-human race will have found a new place to live, with a new sun=
Unless the universe knows whats good for it and stops us. :P
We are a lot more like locusts in many respects, and leaving this planet before we get that tendency under control is probably not a good thing.
zippydebrain 2 years ago
LMFAO, now Patriot is trying to make it seem as though that was merely a draft, LOLWUT?
Even if it was a draft, why would he ever have 'Hello, my name is....' you never announce an academic paper!
Also, Patriot is hoping that people are ignorant regarding Kent's work for them. You see, the dissertation is dated May 25th, 1991. Well, Hovind has a video called 'Answering the Skeptics' where he shows a picture of his "Ph.D." Guess what, the date is like June 13th, 1991. They are LIARS!
1stLtDavis 2 years ago
you're EVIL
dth2ht4wds 2 years ago
you never even addressed the main issue at hand, that the earth is in a state of decline rather than getting better.
HailUnc33 2 years ago
HailUnc33, how is the earth in a 'state of decline?'
The earth is a planet orbiting a star, and it is true that the star in question ( the sun ) is going to literally destroy earth when it is in its final stages of nuclear fusion. However, how is that fact relevant to the earth's current state, or its status yesterday, or even future status, tomorrow?
RebelGuy95 2 years ago
Fuck god.
Ozzy0sbourne 2 years ago
you know what funny....God doesnt even exist and most people think he does...
haha, that causes me much distress bu much fun! :D
Merry fucking chsritmas the human race
0121ryanh117 2 years ago
@0121ryanh117 drunk spelling , merry christmas :D
0121ryanh117 2 years ago
@0121ryanh117 You're funny wishing people a Merry Christmas - and not believing in Christ.
rwbayes 2 years ago
@rwbayes: I know it sounds odd but in my case wishing a believer a merry Christmas does not require me to have a belief in the "reason for the season". I enjoy the Christmas season for many reasons. Its just that I don't have a god belief. Simply because I do not have this belief doesn't mean that I can't wish my friends that are believers a merry Christmas. I'm not sure that I've explained myself adequately but I can understand why you would find this scenario amusing.
auggiedoggy 2 years ago
@auggiedoggy Thanks - I do wish you a Merry Christmas. I hope you have a good New Year, as well.
rwbayes 2 years ago
@zippydebrain: I could do without the periodical smiting since I could eventually be the target.
auggiedoggy 2 years ago
= I could do without the periodical smiting since I could eventually be the target.=
I would probably be high on the list myself, however, any actual GOD that was as obsessed as this one is reportedly that everyone should believe in his power and all that would leave no doubt and make an appearance himself rather than leaving it up to these narrow minded nit-wits to speak on his behalf.
zippydebrain 2 years ago
@zippydebrain Be careful what you wish for, ........
Anyway, Happy New Year.
rwbayes 2 years ago
I like sunsets and cats too :D
Grospoliner 2 years ago
I give my 7th grade student's F's if they start their paper with "Hi, my name is __________________ and I'm going to tell you about ______________." I make them rewrite it. It's crazy even an unaccredited university would accept that from a PhD candidate.
stingernick 2 years ago
Well it is what you would expect from a university run by people with the education and mentality of your average dim-witted 8 year old.
zippydebrain 2 years ago
Scruw them, I want to see more K-rina. =P
callac 2 years ago
As humans we strive for knowledge and mastery over the universe. We have gained knowledge to the point we can manipulate the very building blocks of matter. We are also well on our way to building a race of mechanical beings below us, that we believe will rival our own in intellect and physical ability(robotics). Why is it hard to believe that this thing has been done before?
weslingm 2 years ago
We are not machines. And I find it very difficult to believe that an invisible tyrant in the sky that we've never seen before creates everything who supposedly was talked to and seen many years ago by primitives and showed them supposed miracles. Yet he seems to be lacking his appearances in today's world. Funny that.
Zaroktheimmortal 2 years ago
Yes, we are biological machines. A biologist will confirm that. Each cell is a system that is made up of many subsystems and those subsystems are dependant upon information stored in the dna.
weslingm 2 years ago
We are not the first advanced civilization that has lived on the earth. The evidence is the mechanical ability to move 80 ton stones into pyramids that fit so a paper cannot be inserted between the joints.
If the earth had a nuclear war, In 2000 years our ancestors would be standing around looking at what was left, asking themselves who were those people who built that.
weslingm 2 years ago
The pyramids are not evidence that we were not the first civilization on the planet. How were the pyramids built with slave labour of course. How quickly people forget how many slaves they had doing there work. You have enough slaves and even a primitive civilization can things built. And assuming it was used with sort of advanced technology from some other civilization then were is this technology now? And how did the Egyptians get it? You are talking now about conspiracy theories.
Zaroktheimmortal 2 years ago
There are pyramids throughout the earth. But I was referencing the pyramids in South America. Technology can easily be lost. This is evidenced by the current peoples who live in Egypt who in no way could build a pyramid no matter how many slaves they had.
Only now are we finding antigravity and how to harness it.
weslingm 2 years ago
=Only now are we finding antigravity and how to harness it.=
What are you on exactly?
People have moved large blocks over large distances using simple technology that would have been around at the time and not even using that many 'slaves'.
It is also generally believed that most of these slaves were slaves to the Pharos in much the same way religious nuts today are slaves to Jesus and more often than not the preachers.
zippydebrain 2 years ago
We found Antigravity, and how to harness it? You just lost all credibility. The only thing we just found is anti-matter, which has the same gravitational properties as regular matter.
No such thing as anti-gravity as we know so far.
BloodyRussian 2 years ago
This is a technology closely held by the department of defense. The government has been experimenting with these technologies for 80 years. The science on many technologies has been withheld for years. This is something they do not teach in normal college physics courses.
weslingm 2 years ago
Oh yes I'm sure they have. Because all my Physics Knowledge is from College physics, as if I don't have any outside sources?
Something like ANTI GRAVITY, would not be held in the dark. LEAKs would have happened. Nice try.
BloodyRussian 2 years ago
I am trying to post a link with anti ggavity explained. for some reason there is an error message. Go youtube and search "alien scientist"
weslingm 2 years ago
There isn't even a vaguely plausible theory out there about how anti-gravity would work. The only thing you see is people, from time to time, speculating that it was discovered years ago and is being kept a secret.
Normally new technologies result from things that have been known for ages but were too difficult to do until someone figures out how to make it work. There isn't even the wildest hypothesis about how GRAVITY actually works (it is well understood except for HOW) forget anti-gravity.
zippydebrain 2 years ago
Also, the embalming process used by the Egyptians preserves cells suitable for cloning.
Think about this, A large stone structure, in the middle of a geologically stable area of earth, with your viable dna hidden inside until the technology is rediscovered. Farfetched!
Well the mummy dna is viable. We don't have that technology. But we will.
weslingm 2 years ago
If they were such an advanced Civilization who wanted to preserve bodies for cloning, they would understand that it wouldn't accomplish anything.
You would have a genetic copy of a pharaoh, sure. But without the memories and experiences of the original one, this is just going to be a normal child with a certain set of Genes.
It's not like twins have identical personalities.
BloodyRussian 2 years ago
Again. You are going by speculation. "What if this, what if THAT?" It is extremely easy to speculate on these issues, but hard to find the truth. This is where religion fails. This is where you fail. You state ridiculous statements, and back them up with nothing? Anti-Gravity? Are you shitting me?
BloodyRussian 2 years ago
Because the idea of god is that there is nothing before him, and he is eternal. Even though that completely nullifies the argument of (Everything can't come from nothing.)
BloodyRussian 2 years ago
The laws of this universe would make that true.
Some scientists say there are as many as 26 dimensions. In the bible it describes dimensions where the laws that govern this universe do not apply.
weslingm 2 years ago
The Universe includes all these dimensions.
The Bible also describes the earth as very young. The bible suggests a lot of things, which are sheer speculation. This is a different age, where speculation is tested before it is decided as fact. The bible fails on many levels of this.
BloodyRussian 2 years ago
Ok, The governing laws change with the progression of dimensions.
I believe the bible describes an old earth. The universe is at least 14b years old and probably older. It is not the bible that fails it is some people who interpret it.
weslingm 2 years ago
Sir, you are so beyond your level of knowledge you have no idea. Governing laws change with the progression of dimensions? No they do not. Laws apply for every dimension in said universe, it is the "geometry" of this dimensions that decides how the law affects it. Scientists do not say there may be up to 26 dimensions. We so far have enough IMAGINATION to work with 11. After 11 dimensions, you run out of branches, as the 11th dimension is the line from one infinity to another.
BloodyRussian 2 years ago
Half the crap you saw sounds exactly what this church that I visited said as a defense against non believers.
You honestly have no grasp of the things you claim to understand. You have no scientific background, you just sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist on the level of the "9/11 was an inside job" people.
BloodyRussian 2 years ago
The bible eludes that the laws of entropy affect the heavenly dimensions in a different way.
weslingm 2 years ago
=I believe the bible describes an old earth. The universe is at least 14b years old and probably older. It is not the bible that fails it is some people who interpret it.=
Why is it so difficult for you to just accept the possibility that the book, however important to human history, was probably written by men who had no more direct connections to GOD than Rush Limbaugh does in our time.
It is, was and continues to be the WORD OF GOD simply because the people that wrote it said it was.
zippydebrain 2 years ago
@BloodyRussian You treat the Bible as if it were written merely by men. But what if it were a message from God Himself, not only telling us about Himself, but giving us some insight into His creation?
The Bible described the hydrological cycle long before 'science' verified it. The Bible describes currents in the oceans before they were catalogued by US Navy in the 1800's, The Bible described constellations that have gravitation bonds, which were only discovered recently. Just to name a few.
rwbayes 2 years ago
You're not doing a good job, troll.
Yes, in Gods language, Latin, he wrote it. Yup. God one. You got me there, smart guy. Praise jesus.
BloodyRussian 2 years ago
@BloodyRussian What's up with that? First, the Bible wasn't written in Latin. And if God did write it, wouldn't He put it in a language(s) that humans might understand? I was just pointing out that you were passing judgement on the Bible based upon a presupposition. And I just asked what if that presupposition were something different? And I pointed out some facts that tend to demonstrate that there is more there than your superficial comment would lead us to believe.
rwbayes 2 years ago
Exactly. I am passing a judgment on the Bible. A much more rational judgment. There is a MUCH higher chance that it was written by human beings, instead of something almighty.
The problem with believers is that they always tell atheists that they don't have proof that their Gods DON'T exist, yet the fail to remember that when you accuse something of being real the burden of proof is ON YOU, not the rest of the world.
BloodyRussian 2 years ago
@Bloodd - U say U want proof. Yet when proof is given, U deny, or won't accept it. The point is not that I can't prove God exists, but I can't prove to YOU God exists. For the record, there is NO Chance that the Bible was authored by Humans. It was penned by humans, yes, but its source remains divine. The trade mark of God is being able to explain the future with 100% accuracy. It is undeniable & irreproducable. The prophecies in the Book of Daniel were in black & White 300 years b4 Christ.
rwbayes 2 years ago
@rwbayes: Regarding the bible; Doesn't it sound like a half-assed attempt (for an all-knowing, all-seeing being) at getting his message across to his creations (us)? The stories are so convoluted, the bible can only be the creation of man. A book written, as someone already said, for goat-herders.
auggiedoggy 2 years ago
@auggiedoggy
What story is convoluted? What would a God do to get His message across, in your opinion?
rwbayes 2 years ago
@rwbayes
This question has been asked of me many times. The bible as a whole is a collection of convoluted stories in my opinion. In its day I could see how this writing style would be effective. The idea that a god would resort to passing on his message to his creation via a middleman seems an odd means for such an entity. It would be easier, more efficient and 100% foolproof if said god created us with this knowledge being inherent.
auggiedoggy 2 years ago
@rwbayes (continued): With an inherent knowledge of a creator all chance of error is removed. Look at how many versions of gods and deities and religious texts we have today! If there is a one true god look at the conflict and confusion created by not making this knowledge inherent. People killing people because they don't believe in the same god or for not having a belief in any god.
auggiedoggy 2 years ago
=It would be easier, more efficient and 100% foolproof if said god created us with this knowledge being inherent.=
Never mind that it would be pretty obvious if he turned up every 50 years or so and smited something so that people could witness it. I suppose he could do something nice and miraculous but that seems wildly out of character for the GOD of the Old Testament anyways.
zippydebrain 2 years ago
@zippydebrain Unfortunately, and reported, even though someone were raised from the dead, they would not believe. Alas.....
rwbayes 2 years ago
WTF? where in the fuck you read about skyscrapers airplains cars ect in that fuck up stupid book of yours moron
frank3976 2 years ago
@frank3976 You deserve no response
rwbayes 2 years ago
@BloodyRussian You (Naturalists in General) have made the only way to define life and our existence to be without God. ANY assertion to explain and describe evidence of God is categorically disclaimed, disregarded, and disqualified.You Automatically deny God, by definition. Which means you have nullified any possibility to prove He exists. You can't demand we prove God and then say "O no, that breaks the rules" when we do make the argument. That, BTW, is a perversion of scientific inquiry.
rwbayes 2 years ago
No. The only reason we disregard your proof is that it usually comes in the form of something ridiculous, such as "WELL LOOK AT EVERYTHING, THERE IS NO WAY IT HAPPENED BY CHANCE". The reason Scientific Inquiry is "Perverted" is because we want to see something TESTED before it is written down anyway.
Science doesn't disclaim anything. Science always has unanswered questions, even about proven theories, so don't try to victimize yourself.
BloodyRussian 2 years ago
@rwbayes BULLSHIT
777neotamakachi777 2 years ago
= But what if it were a message from God Himself, not only telling us about Himself, but giving us some insight into His creation? =
Then he shouldn't have written something that sounds so ridiculous by modern standards. It is far more likely that it was written by Goat Herders with high IQs and an understanding that what their unruly civilization needed was, well, some RULES.
Since nobody was going to take their word for it they made up a scary magical creator that punishes anti social acts.
zippydebrain 2 years ago
It was written for goat herders to understand.
weslingm 2 years ago
=It was written for goat herders to understand=
At best it was written for goat herders to understand. That would suggest that a great deal if it is irrelevant today. I would tend to argue almost all of it is irrelevant.
It is far more likely that the reason this really old book talks about GOD turning up and taking direct action THEN but doesn't in todays 'everyone has a camera' world is that GOD never took direct action then either...
Its a book...written by the smartest of the goat herders.
zippydebrain 2 years ago
@zippydebrain
Faithfulness, self-sacrifice, Love, loyalty, integrity, perseverance, honesty, These are irrelevant for today?
Even in the earliest chapters were farmers, shepherds, artisans, musicians, metal workers, star gazers, architects, ship builders and such. Sounds not too different to me.
God's not taking action today? What kind of actions do you expect Him to make? What kind would say - "I'm God"? Wouldn't you think it would have to be something other than naturalistic?
rwbayes 2 years ago
Comment removed
zippydebrain 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
=What kind would say - "I'm God"?=
Isn't that the start of the first commandment?
=Faithfulness, self-sacrifice, Love, loyalty, integrity, perseverance, honesty.=
Those are great things...but a great deal of the Old Testament deals with genocide and vengence. I did say mostly irrelevant. I wouldn't off hand want to place a percentage on that I just know that most of the passages of the OT that I have read scare me, and not for the reasons you might think.
That GOD is a total freaking lunatic.
zippydebrain 2 years ago
Youtube won't let me paste web adresses as I have tried several times user/AlienScientist#p/u/26/pJJ-4lnwrck
Paste this onto youtube url
weslingm 2 years ago
since we are dealing with a bunch of stupid idiods that tend to distorte any real data. so since we have the advantage and the facts, I think it is important to keep it sceincetific and not resort to wrong analogies. If we are talking analogies, the stupid idiots can also make a case
peace and love
shalomavitan 2 years ago
annnd maybe subscribe... because it will make me happy. very cute very cute
FotoSpencer 2 years ago
Even though creatures get more complex due to evolution
the TOTAL entropy of the universe increases (so in fact, evolution does not defy the so called second law of thermodynamics)
shahgat0 2 years ago
"maybe subscribe" make you happy
FIVE STARS just for that
shahgat0 2 years ago
sorry to rate and watch so late.love your vids, criss!hope you are also warm and well, and best to you, your hubby, your cat!been thinking of your job search also..hope it goes well.peace!
practicalmagic9 2 years ago
huhuseriously guys there must be some nice men out there i am so lonely
Arlenamadra 2 years ago
The only thing I will nick-pick about is the idea that the sun is a "permanent" source of energy. Eventually the sun will die and we will be completely screwed - but sometime before that happens our orbit will degrade enough that the earth will no longer be in the zone of habitability and we will be most likely screwed (depending on our level of technology I suppose).
:)
sinmantyx 2 years ago
That will likely be a slow process. The Earth's orbit won't degrade (at least not that anyone can determine) but if conditions change and we are no longer in the habitable zone, then we will evolve and the new zone will be the only habitable zone. At least until the sun starts it's nova process. You're right, the sun will eventually burn out. Chances are really good that humans will be long extinct by then, though. No worries.
Ripley747 2 years ago
"The Earth's orbit won't degrade (at least not that anyone can determine)"
Not true - we can calculate it. Since the sun is constantly losing mass, the earth's orbit (and all other orbits) are constantly also losing potential energy (not to mention tiny bits of friction).
I have my bets on climate change (natural and artificial) + pandemic myself. LIFE will probably persist, but I'm not sure we have a chance of continuing indefinitely.
sinmantyx 2 years ago
I haven't heard this. Interesting. Can you cite a source, by chance? You're probably right, but I'm curious how fast we are moving away from the sun.
I have my bets on a stray comet. However, I believe if it doesn't happen in the next 50 years, something else will get us (technology will help prevent anything smaller than a dwarf planet from hitting us). Second place goes to a pandemic airborne virus. I can see climate change.
Ripley747 2 years ago
I don't get some people assume that evolution is a strive towards perfection.
There is no 'perfect' or 'ultimate' form for a creature, they are just constant adaptations to changing environments. There isn't an environment or that will always stay constant which means there is no way for a creature to achieve 'perfection.'
Bibliofish 2 years ago
=There is no 'perfect' or 'ultimate' form for a creature=
It is always with respect to an environment, and it seems that if an environment becomes stable so does a creature at some kind of optimum but 'perfection' where evolution is concerned is a state in which no change in the creature (within the limits of what evolution can do) seems to give the new version of the creature any notable advantage over its contemporaries.
But yes a quest for THE perfect animal is not what evolution is at all.
zippydebrain 2 years ago
Cap si frumusete, combinatia letala, ca intotdeauna superb 5 and fav.
Happy holidays
bladedaemon666 2 years ago
Thermodynamics don't really apply to the quality of an organisms genes. the usefulness of the genes is defigned by the enviroment the organism is in, not how much energy it has.
Escapist166 2 years ago
@Escapist166 but it does apply to how things are organized or disorganized - which is an application of energy
rwbayes 2 years ago
the scariest thing about Kent Hovind is that he lives less than 2 hrs away from me. *shivers*
rileed 2 years ago
@rileed There are scarier things like the passing of the current health care legislation. :-)
rwbayes 2 years ago
a flea upon a flea upon a flea. infinity. cosmic energy. nothing can begat nothing. it is our struggle to seperate politics from faith and all become one. thats my version of 'evolution'.
darkmarkrammstein 2 years ago
The Sun is a permanent source of energy? There r 2 things that don't exist in our universe, they r only theoretical concepts. 1-is Randomness. 2-is infinity. Within the space/time/matter continuum infinity does not exist. Therefore there is no infinite source of energy. The universe as a whole is a closed system - that what the 1st law says.Within that system can be open and closed systems, but the overall result will still progress towards entropy.
rwbayes 2 years ago
« Randomness »
Not sure about randomness. At the quantum level, randomness may very well exist, eg. Heisenberg uncertainty, quantum fluctuations, etc. It is speculated that quantum fluctuations during the earliest phases of the expansion of the universe were responsible for the distribution of matter throughout it, making the overall structure of the cosmos random as well.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
@XGralgrathor Well put. However, one of the things that a computer scientist will attest to is that there is no such thing as a random number. We can generate pseudo-random numbers - but true randomness doesn't exist. The closest possible example of something that appears random is the decimal places of Pi and E. Even at that, it's the same number every time. And entropy is defined as something that moves to total randomness - there is no order. Ref Chaos theory.
rwbayes 2 years ago
« one of the things that a computer scientist will attest to »
Perhaps. But a computer does not employ isotope decay or quantum fluctuations to arrive at its calculation.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
« And entropy is defined as something that moves to total randomness »
Actually, it isn't. Entropy is defined as the availability of usable energy in a system, in other words, it is the measure of dissipation of energy throughout a closed system. This does not necessarily equate to having more or less order.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
@XGralgrathor Actually I think it does "entropy is defined as a thermodynamic property which serves as a measure of how close a system is to equilibrium; as well as a measure of the disorder in the system." -Encarta
rwbayes 2 years ago
« as well as a measure of the disorder in the system »
Interesting, but consider ice, or ice II, III or IV. Each of these forms of ice are more ordered than the preceding form, and yet each comes to exist as more energy is leached from the system. Total equilibrium (max. entropy) may also equal total order, whereas a disequilibrium (min. entropy) may equal total chaos. So I don't think that 'measure of disorder' is a particularly apt description of entropy.
XGralgrathor 2 years ago
@XGralgrathor Hm gotta think about that one. But you've also used as an illustration the one substance that produces unique properties at various temps/pressure/states than any other substance. Which may speak to this marvelous exception that makes life possible, and not necessarily to a standard description of entropy.
rwbayes 2 years ago